‘Make no mistake about it: because of today’s
decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are
ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.’
- Justice Antonin Scalia,
in a sharp dissent in Maryland v King, which he read aloud in the
courtroom
Damn
right. Thank you for saying so and reading your dissent publicly.
The
Fourth Amendment states:
‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.’
‘And … so? That’s exactly what happens with
fingerprint matches, too. They get entered into state, regional, and national
databases, where investigators can find hits on previously cold cases.’
- Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, 3 June 2013
Oh,
Ed, can you really not see the difference between fingerprints and DNA???
Do
you want the government to have access to your genetic makeup? Perhaps, you
have a genetic predisposition to certain diseases. You know, HHS – and…Who
knows? Maybe, the IRS – might want that information in the future.
Isn’t
it bad enough that the FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT now OWNS your
medical records?
Before Obamacare (BOC), YOU
owned your medical records.
After Obamacare (AOC), the GOVERNMENT
owns them.
Haven’t
you seen enough corruption in BIG
GOVERNMENT to understand
why no one should want their DNA taken without a warrant?
Hey,
maybe, you’ll get arrested for some bogus reason and the government will get
your DNA, put it in a database, and BOOM!: You are determined to have some
genetic disposition to mental illness. NO GUN FOR
YOU.
‘The salient point in your argument is
ObamaCare, not booking procedure for an arrest. Also, as I point out in the
post, the dissenters never even bring up the genetic privacy argument in
Scalia’s opinion.’
- Ed Morrissey on June 3, 2013 at 1:40 PM
No,
the salient point in my post is that DNA is different from fingerprints, as it identifies
much more than a person’s mere identity.
I
don’t care whether Scalia and the dissenters raised the issue. I AM.
We’ve
seen enough of what the Federal government, with its constant snooping,
targeting, harassing, etc, of Americans, to know that this is a very bad idea.
Why
is it such a prohibitive burden for the state to get a warrant?
‘Make no mistake about it: because of today’s
decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are
ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.’
- Justice Antonin Scalia
Back
when Lawrence v Texas was decided, Scalia sharply dissented with Justice
Kennedy’s opinion for the majority.
Kennedy went out of his way to argue that legalising sodomy would not
lead to gay marriages. Scalia, rightly, said ‘after this decision, SSM is
INEVITABLE’ because one of
the main reasons that SSM was prohibited was because of sodomy laws. His point
was simple: Take away the criminality of sodomy and the constitutional barriers
to SSM also fall.
People from both sides laughed and said that Scalia was
hysterical…
…and, yet, THIS Court will be ruling on TWO cases on SSM within
days/weeks.
The
Left sure isn’t laughing at Scalia’s prescience now, is it? They have been
arguing his precise point ever since.
[I
agreed with Scalia on the inevitablity of SSM, but with the majority in Lawrence.
I raise the case merely to point out what was once labeled as 'hysterical
rantings from the black helicopter crowd' has become reality in many states
already.]
I
think what frustrates me so much with the responses of too many is the failure
to understand how the law works. Caselaw is built upon precedent. It doesn’t
remain in a vacuum. For example, Roe v Wade didn’t just come out of the
blue. It was based on a ‘right to privacy’ that the Supreme Court found in Griswold
v Connecticut. Also, as I noted above, the SSM cases are built, in a large
degree, on Lawrence v Texas.
Last
year, the Court decided a case called Kentucky v King. Say you are
presently sitting on your sofa, surfing the net, and smoking a big joint.
Outside, the police are chasing a drug dealer. He disappears into your
apartment building. The police enter the building and, in the process of
searching for him, they pass and smell the pot wafting from your door.
Now,
imagine the ‘Constitutional lawyer’ and ‘champion of civil liberties’ like
Barack Obama and his administration filing an amicus brief in support of the
right of the police to bust down your door, search your apartment, seize your
pot and, possibly, other property that can then be sold in police auctions ALL
WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!!
Well,
he did…and the Supreme Court ruled that ‘warrantless
searches conducted in exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment
so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening
to violate the Fourth amendment.’
Now,
you may ask: ‘What was the exigent
circumstance that gave rise to the police’s right to kick down a citizen’s
door, search his apartment, and seize evidence ALL WITHOUT A WARRANT?’
Well,
that’s easy, you simpletons and subjects (sarc): The
guy might destroy the evidence before the police can obtain a warrant!
Think
about that for a second. Basically, the Court ‘repealed’ the Fourth Amendment BECAUSE THERE ARE VERY FEW CASES IN WHICH THE TIME
BETWEEN THE POLICE COMING INTO CONTACT WITH POSSIBLE ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR AND THE
OBTAINMENT OF A SEARCH WARRANT WOULD NOT APPLY. What’s the
difference between flushing pot down the toilet and a person destroying a
computer in a way that evidence cannot be recovered?
Now,
they’ll be those of you, who will claim that this is ‘black helicopter’ stuff,
but bear with me for a sec…
Let’s
say that the Federal government makes it a felony to use a certain type of
light bulb. One day, you are sitting on your sofa and the cops are chasing a
drug dealer. In the course of this chase, one of the police officers notices
that you are enjoying the illumination provided by felonious contraband. If the
police officer takes the time to go to a judge to obtain a warrant, you might
be able to destroy those bad light bulbs. What will stop the police from
breaking down your door, searching your home, seizing ANY evidence of ANY
POSSIBLE crime, arresting
you, charging you with a felony, selling your property at a police auction, and
tell you, ‘Well, if we are wrong, then you can always file a lawsuit, pray that
you win, and hope that we deign to pay any judgment.’
The
law MUST be looked at in context of
previous cases AND FUTURE CASES. Removing the barrier to collecting DNA because,
well, it’s no different than fingerprints or booking photos, is a HUGE DEAL.
DNA is NOT like fingerprints or booking photos, which
only identify a person.
DNA
can be used to identify much more than a person’s identity…and, now, that the
Supreme Court has, basically, said: ‘What’s the big deal about DNA?’ don’t be
surprised when Maryland v King leads to more intrusive behaviour by the
government…and, please, don’t forget that I warned you.
‘And when there is a rape
committed in a town, the police will simply “temporarily” arrest EVERY MAN IN
TOWN who fits the description, collect DNA and drop all the “charges”, and then
run that DNA as a comparison to see if anybody is the rapist.’
- Mahdi on June 3, 2013
at 3:06 PM
‘Something
like this has already happened in at least one case, the murder of a woman on
Cape Cod. I think there have been other cases, but I don’t recall the details.’
- cool breeze on June 3,
2013 at 3:13 PM
The
case involved the murder of fashion writer, Christa Worthington. All of the
men were NOT 'temporarily arrested' and the collection of DNA was based on a
'voluntary basis.' IIRC, the ACLU attempted to stop even the voluntary
collection. The man, who was eventually charged with her murder, VOLUNTARILY gave his DNA. He was
not 'temporarily arrested and subjected to a DNA swab.'
While I don't particularly care about 'voluntary DNA collection schemes' because they tend to make subjects out of those that refuse to submit - and people may have a reason for not wanting to comply other than having ANY culpability in the case at issue* - it IS different than what Maryland v King has given us.
* For example, someone in the community, who has been a law-abiding citizen for decades, may have committed a crime years ago and was never charged. It might not even be a serious case, but could have serious consequences in his life. Under the Fifth Amendment, this man should have a right not to incriminate himself by giving DNA.
‘If I may break out of my usual pessimism:
Precedent isn’t forever.’
- nobar on June 3, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Very
true, but the arc of history has proven that it is difficult to reverse and
propels the ever-reaching growth of government and intrusion in the name of
‘progress.’
‘If we can take finger prints on an arrest, we
can take DNA on an arrest. I’m going to have to disagree with Scalia on this
one. I can’t say I’m totally comfortable with this, but I don’t see how a cheek
swab, and DNA storage of said swab, is any different than finger printing and
storage of said print.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 3:27 PM
Unlike fingerprinting and booking photos, DNA identifies much
more than individuals. It can be used to
identify genetic predispositions to illnesses, including mental.
When
you read of cases such as this, keep the IRS scandal in mind.
And,
before anyone accuses me of being in the ‘black helicopter crowd,’ remember
that was what many of you said about the then-allegations that the IRS was
targeting Obama opponents.
‘I still fail to see the difference between
this and fingerprinting. ObamaCare is not a valid rebuttal in my view.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 3:41 PM
Fine.
Don’t concern yourself with Obamacare. Just hope that genetic testing doesn’t
reveal you to have a predisposition to schizophrenia or some such mental
disorder. The government might just argue that you are too dangerous based on
your DNA profile to ever be allowed to own a firearm.
‘All the abuse the government may or may not
be capable of is irrelevant. Police officers can abuse their authority 24/7 if they
wished too, but does the potential for such abuse preclude the possibility of
ever arresting anyone? The only question here is whether or not DNA collection
is legitimate on arrest. In my view it depends. If we’re going to use the
finger print standard it is. If we instead reexamine our 4th Amendment
jurisprudence I would argue we need a warrant for finger prints as well.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 3:53 PM
You
are looking at this case in a vacuum and that is not how the law works. It is
not about potential abuse by the police. It is about potential abuse by the
government and the removal of one more barrier that stands between the people
and their government.
Already,
many employers require background checks and even the submission of fingerprints
as a condition of employment. If, as the Court seems to be saying, there is no
real difference between fingerprints and DNA, what is to stop laws that permit
collection of DNA by employers or government agencies for reasons OTHER THAN BEING ARRESTED, which is NOT the same thing as being charged with a crime, per
se?
Will
the next step being to permit DNA collection for PRIVILEGES? You want a driver’s licence? Well, you know, you
are going to have to submit a DNA sample. You want a marriage licence? Well,
you are going to have to submit a DNA sample because you and your intended
might create children with birth defects. The government can already prohibit
certain people from marrying based on blood because of possible birth defects,
etc. Why not prevent people, who could create similar birth defects, from
obtaining marriage licences, too? What difference, at that point, would it
make?
Will
the government or employers, at some near point in the future, be able to use
the information gleaned from DNA for other reasons? We are talking about more
than tools that simply identify individuals. ‘You know, you have a genetic
predisposition to cancer and investing in and insuring you would be very
costly,’ says a possible employer.
What
about iris scans or, perhaps, some test that might screen brain waves to
predict behaviour, which are being worked on as I write? They aren’t invasive
either.
People
used to look at movies like ‘Minority Report’ as some sci-fi fantasy that might
be interesting, but never, ever, ever could happen in the real world. IIRC,
Louise Brown, the world’s first test tube baby, was born in the same year that
I was. Her birth stunned the world. Now, IVF is no biggie. Technology moves
and, before we willing cede the few constitutional protections that we have
left, we should consider the future implications.
[I agreed with Scalia on
the inevitablity of SSM, but with the majority in Lawrence. I raise the case
merely to point out what was once labeled as 'hysterical rantings from the black
helicopter crowd' has become reality in many states already.]
- Resist We Much on June
3, 2013 at 1:55 PM
That
is dead-on accurate. It was obvious to me in law school when Lawrence dropped, but
the dumb-ass libbies all scoffed at Scalia’s “boogieman”. Why? BECAUSE they
were support SSM/planning to legalize SSM back then, and didn’t want anyone
tipped off in advance to oppose it.
-
Saltyron on June 3, 2013 at 3:57 PM
‘You are looking at this
case in a vacuum and that is not how the law works.’
- Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM
- Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM
‘That’s how the
Constitution works. Something is either constitutional or it isn’t. Everything
else is a matter of law and/or regulation.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:20 PM
I
said ‘the law.’ I meant how the law is handled in the real world. In law school, we didn’t study the
Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the legislative histories of
laws. We
studied PRECEDENT.
Once
again, Roe v Wade was not a case that
came out of the blue for those paying attention. The ‘right to privacy’ was
found in Griswold v Connecticut years
before involving the right of married couples to use contraception. SSM laws
are based, in large part, on the removal of the criminality of sodomy. Once
sodomy was no longer illegal, then it was easy for proponents to begin to argue
along the lines of Loving v Virginia.
‘Allowing certain information to be collected
on arrest does not promote or prevent abuse. We prevent abuse through
legislation and following the law.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:20 PM
Sure,
but I’m not limiting my analysis to the collection of DNA upon arrest. What the
Court is saying is that DNA is no different than fingerprints and booking
photographs. THAT IS UNTRUE, as a matter of science.
‘And everything else in your post is a matter
of law.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:20 PM
A
‘matter of law’ doesn’t mean that all laws are constitutional when passed. They
are determined to be constitutional and precedent is critical here.
‘I hate taxes, but they aren’t
unconstitutional. Again, a matter of law.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:20 PM
Income
taxes WERE unconstitutional (see Pollock
v Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company). It required a constitutional
amendment to make them legal.
They
did not arise through an evolution in the law.
They
did not arise because courts chipped away at the prohibition and the people did
nothing.
‘I’m repeating myself now, but I think it is
important to do so. As I said above I believe 4th Amendment jurisprudence
should be revisited in general.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:20 PM
I
agree, especially in the wake of the Court’s decision in Kentucky v King.
‘But as long as we hold to current precedent
DNA collection on arrest is constitutional.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:20 PM
So
is Obamacare. Do you still support it? Am I supposed to support the collection
of DNA because 5 justices on the Supreme Court said it is? The Court once
upheld slavery and segregation, too.
‘I also would support laws to stringently
limit what law enforcement and private companies can collect from a person in
general.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:20 PM
Yet,
because of this case, a critical barrier to preventing those has been removed.
The government has been given a brand new spanking power and, as we have seen,
it is not often that it returns such power to the people.
‘I refuse to view the Constitution through a
self selective eye that sees only what it wants to see. Yes, slavery was once
constitutional. No, that was not right, but being wrong did not make it
unconstitutional.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:25 PM
In
1986: Laws criminalising sodomy were constitutional.
In
2003: Laws criminalising sodomy were UNconstitutional.
Same
Constitution, different Court.
‘I don’t think Roe or the ObamaCare ruling are
the same thing. 4th Amendment jurisprudence is a complicated mess, and good
arguments exist on both sides on several 4th Amendment issues. And we either
abide by current 4th Amendment precedent, or we revisit it entirely. Roe and
ObamaCare are just plain wrong and stupid.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:49 PM
You
are missing my point. Roe was built on the foundation created in Griswold. It
has been used as a further precedent since.
Obamacare
created a heretofore unknown tax in the Constitution. Its precedent can be used
in the future to create similar taxes on individual mandates.
My
argument is not limited to the Fourth Amendment. It is, at its crux, an
argument about precedent and the removal of yet another barrier protecting the
people from the government, as the Founding Fathers intended in the Bill of
Rights.
‘Our current tax system arose through law. The
16th Amendment does not require income taxes be collected, but only allows it.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:49 PM
The laws concerning taxing income REQUIRED a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. We no longer require
constitutional amendments to erode our rights. Courts get to do that and the
sheeple say nothing.
‘Which brings us back around to the black and
white aspect of the Constitution. Something is either allowed, or it is not.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:49 PM
So,
you honestly believe that is how it works, eh? The composition of the Supreme
Court, for example, doesn’t have any impact on the ‘black and white’ aspect of
the Constitution.
Do
you know what is ‘black and white’? The Second Amendment. How long in this
country’s history did it take for the right to bear arms be recognised by the
Supreme Court? More than 200…in a 5/4 decision. That ‘black and white’ aspect of
the Second Amendment is one liberal justice replacing a conservative justice
away from extinction.
‘And my view of current 4th Amendment
jurisprudence tells me DNA collection on arrest is allowed.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:49 PM
‘Current
4th Amendment jurisprudence’???
You
make my point. The ‘living and breathing Constitution’ will keep marching on
depending upon what is the ‘current’ jurisprudence and how people ‘view’ it.
‘Yet, a critical barrier
to preventing those has been removed. The government has been given a brand new
spanking power and, as we have seen, it is not often that it returns such power
to the people.’
- Resist We Much
‘I agree.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:49 PM
Yet,
you support this decision. As I wrote above, generally, don’t say that I didn’t
warn you.
PS:
Can’t wait for you to start supporting SSM should the Court strike down DOMA
and rule Prop 8 unconstitutional. It will be the ‘current’ jurisdiction, ya
know?
‘Again, I agree the [ruling in Griswold v
Connecticut] is wrongheaded. However, the later ruling is based in the
illegitimate constitutional concept that we have a right to privacy. And that
right to privacy invention would probably be used by many to say DNA collection
on arrest is unconstitutional.’
- NotCoach on June 3,
2013 at 4:51 PM
I
disagree. I don’t have a problem with Lawrence. Like Brown
v Board of Education, the Court used a ‘right’ or theory that it didn’t
need to in order to arrive at the same decision.
Well,
I’m pretty sure that the Founding Fathers would have argued – without a ‘right
to privacy’ – that the government needed a warrant to collect such data.
As
far as the collection of DNA and the Fourth Amendment is concerned, I don’t
need the ‘right to privacy’ to argue that a warrant should be obtained.
‘Because your DNA could
conceivably be used to correctly diagnose a mental disorder?
If you don’t think mental
illness should disqualify you from owning a gun, state that. Using DNA to
determine that is really unrelated — except that it would be more accurate than
current methods.'
- Count to 10 on June 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM
I’d
ask you to re-read the post because you obviously missed something very important:
NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT A PERSON, WHO HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS. NOWHERE.
Rather, I wrote about genetic predispositions to illnesses being used proactively.
In this country, you cannot be deprived of your rights until you actually commit a crime or, in the case of gun control, until you have been adjudicated mentally ill.
There’s a HUGE difference between being genetically predisposed to an illness and actually contracting/developing it. For example, Angelina Jolie just had a double mastectomy because she carries the ‘faulty’ BRCA1 gene. Doctors estimated that she had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, but she was cancer-free, never having been diagnosed with any form of cancer when she underwent the procedure.
People can disagree as to whether Jolie shouldn’t have taken such a drastic step (I don’t), but what they cannot dispute is that it was a decision made solely be her. No government was involved.
Imagine a sort-of ‘faulty’ BRCA1 gene for schizophrenia. If the government determines that an individual carries this gene and has an 87% chance, possibly, of developing the illness, should it be able to act proactively and prescribe the person’s rights?
'The rest of it is, well, kind of insane. You are describing a
fascist state, and then more or less claiming that DNA privacy is the one
single thing separating us from it.'
I
bet you were arguing that the IRS’ targeting of proponents of causes which
Obama opposes in an unethical, immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and
UN-American manner was just part of another of the musings of a member of
‘black helicopter crowd’ not too long ago.
You
might consider what the Federal government did to black men, secretly, in
Tuskegee before assuming that a country must be a fascist state before the
government could possibly use medicine or health as a means to harm, be it
intentionally or negligently, citizens.
History has proven otherwise.
'You seem to be missing
the fact that if it ever gets to that point, current ability to test DNA will
be irrelevant. You are chasing after a grand distraction.'
You
seem not to understand how the law works. Every time that you cede a modicum of
your personal liberty and constitutional rights, including the right to keep
your person free from unreasonable searches and seizures without demanding that
a government prove there is probable cause to a judge in order to secure a
warrant, you set another foundational stone in place for further governmental
intrusion and erosion of liberty.
Don’t say that I didn’t warn you.
'I think some people are
either over-reacting or don’t know a lot about this issue.
“The CODIS database is
based on 13 loci … which … make possible extreme accuracy in matching
individual samples, with a “random match probability of approximately 1 in 100
trillion (assuming unrelated individuals).” … The CODIS loci are from the
non-protein coding junk regions of DNA, and “are not known to have any
association with a genetic disease or any other genetic predisposition. Thus,
the information in the database is only useful for human identity testing”
- celt on June 4, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Maryland
v King is a foundational
stone, just as Griswold v Connecticut paved the way for Roe v Wade.
Let me guess, you oppose the idea of a national gun registry, but see no problem with a national DNA database.
No irony there.
1 comment:
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that constitutionality or unconstitutionality can flow with the whims of a court and it's makeup at any particular time? Didn't Justice Roberts just prove that to us with Obamacare? By acting like Obama's law professor, and correcting his paper for him the court decided that Obama MEANT to call it a tax, thereby setting precedent for every future, bogus government claim to the courts that may be "corrected" on a political whim? If my thoughts are wrong, please correct me.
Post a Comment